Revisiting the Navy’s Moral Compass: Has Commanding Officer Conduct Improved? by Captain Jason A. Vogt United States Navy United States Army War College Class of 2014 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: A Approved for Public Release Distribution is Unlimited This manuscript is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
31
Embed
Compass: Has Commanding Officer Conduct Improved?publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/274.pdf · Revisiting the Navy’s Moral Compass: Has Commanding Officer Conduct Improved? by
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Revisiting the Navy’s Moral Compass: Has Commanding Officer
Conduct Improved?
by
Captain Jason A. Vogt United States Navy
United States Army War College Class of 2014
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: A Approved for Public Release
Distribution is Unlimited
This manuscript is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The views expressed in this student academic research
paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States
Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved--OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
15-04-2014
2. REPORT TYPE
STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT .33
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Revisiting the Navy’s Moral Compass: Has Commanding Officer Conduct Improved?
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
Captain Jason A. Vogt United States Navy
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Captain Mark F. Light Department of Command, Leadership, and Management
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Avenue, Carlisle, PA 17013
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Distribution A: Approved for Public Release. Distribution is Unlimited.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Word Count: 5,278
14. ABSTRACT
This paper builds upon Captain Mark F. Light’s Strategy Research Project “The Navy’s Moral Compass”
by investigating steps taken by the US Navy addressing commanding officer misconduct. Reviewing
Captain Light’s findings, as well as findings of a recent Naval Inspector General report, this paper explores
Navy Leadership initiatives such as the Charge of Command and Command Qualification Program along
with analysis of statistics of Navy commanding officer firings from 2010 through 2013. The paper reviews
previous recommendations and their effect on commanding officer misconduct. While some progress is
apparent, the paper reviews additional steps for the Navy to consider and makes recommendations calling
for the Navy to provide future transparency and consistency regarding data involving commanding officer
misconduct, potential dissuasive measures to consider in the future and a call for additional and more
thorough studies on the subject. By taking a fix of where the Navy stands regarding commanding officer
misconduct, this paper will define today what has succeeded, what has not, and provide a path to the next
level of debate regarding the Navy’s policies, standards, and ethics for commanding officers.
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
UU
18. NUMBER OF PAGES
31 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT
UU b. ABSTRACT
UU c. THIS PAGE
UU 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (w/ area code)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98), Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
Revisiting the Navy’s Moral Compass: Has Commanding Officer Conduct Improved?
by
Captain Jason A. Vogt United States Navy
Captain Mark F. Light Department of Command, Leadership, and Management
Project Adviser This manuscript is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.
U.S. Army War College
CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
Abstract Title: Revisiting the Navy’s Moral Compass: Has Commanding Officer
Conduct Improved? Report Date: 15 April 2014 Page Count: 31 Word Count: 5,278 Key Terms: Ethics, Misconduct, Character, Integrity, Leadership, Charge of
2 “NAS Whidbey Squadron Commander Relieved of Duty after Alleged Drunk Driving
Incident,” Whidbey News-Times, April 12, 2011. 3 Tony Lombardo, “Amphib CO Fired, Source Says Linked to Alleged Bribery Scheme,”
Navy Times, October 2, 2013.
4 Karen Florin and Jennifer McDermott, “Sub Commander Relieved of Duty after Woman Alleges he Faked Death to End Affair,” August 13, 2012, http://theday.com/article/20120812/NWS09/120819922/1017 (accessed January 10, 2014).
5 Mark F. Light, “The Navy’s Moral Compass: Commanding Officers and Personal Misconduct,” Naval War College Review 65, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 136 – 152. Originally published as The Navy’s Moral Compass: Commanding Officers and Personal Misconduct, Strategy Research Project (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, March 26, 2010).
9 U.S. Navy Department, Commanding Officer Detach for Cause Study 2010 (Washington DC: Naval Inspector General), [hereafter Naval IG 2010] Executive Summary.
10 Ibid. Per Naval IG 2010 report, “Personal Misconduct” included five subcategories; Orders Violations, Computer Pornography, Falsifying Documents, Adultery/Inappropriate Relationships/Harassment/Sexual Assault, and Alcohol/DUI. Executive Summary.
11 Ibid., 15.
12 Ibid., 20.
13 Ibid., 20-21.
14 William H. McMichael, “Honors Reprimanded but Can Stay in Uniform,” Navy Times, August 24, 2011, http://www.navytimes.com/article/20110824/NEWS/108240313/Honors-reprimanded-but-can-stay-in-uniform
15 Admiral J.C. Harvey Jr., “USS PONCE (LPD 15) CO/XO Relief,” Archived U.S. Fleet Forces Command Blog (2009-2012), blog entry posted April 26, 2011, http://usfleetforces.blogspot.com/2011/04/uss-ponce-lpd-15-co-xo-relief.html (Accessed January 10, 2014).
16 Sam Fellman, “CNO Underlines Command Conduct Standards,” Navy Times, July 18, 2011.
17 U.S. Code Title 10 Section 5947 – Requirement of exemplary conduct.
“All commanding officers and others in authority in the naval service are required to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command; to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices, and to correct, according to the laws and regulations of the Navy, all persons who are guilty of them; and to take all necessary and proper measures, under the laws, regulations, and customs of the naval service, to promote and safeguard the morale, the physical well-being, and the general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons under their command or charge.”
18 Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan W. Greenert, “The Charge of Command,” memorandum for all prospective commanding officers, Washington DC, November 8, 2011.
19 Department of the Navy, OPNAVINST 1412.14, “Command Qualification Program,” 4 June 2012.
20 Ibid., 2.
21 Ibid., 3.
22 Department of the Navy, OPNAVINST 5354.1F CH-1, “Navy Equal Opportunity Policy,” September 20, 2011.
25 Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Command, “Questions and Answers Concerning DEOMI’s Website and DEOCS Communications Outage,” http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/21st_Century_Sailor/equal_opportunity/Documents/DEOMIDEOCSQA.docx (Accessed March 15, 2014).
26 Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Command, NAVADMIN 336/13, “Guidance on
Command Climate Assessments,” December 30, 2013.
27 Aaron Bresnahan, “The Charge of Command,” September 1, 2011, http://www.ausn.org/NewsPublications/NavyMagazine/MagazineArticles/tabid/2170/ID/10775/The-Charge-of-Command.aspx (Accessed 21 March 2014).
28 CDR Salamander, “Skipper, Come Sign Your Page 13,” blog entry posted July 20, 2011, http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2011/07/skipper-come-sign-your-page-13.html (Accessed 15 January 2014).
29 SailorBob 2.0, The Real SWO Gouge Home Page, www.sailorbob.com (Accessed January 10, 2014).
30 There are several internet locations where the Navy community has created opportunity online to discuss events or post opinions. Examples include; SailorBob 2.0, The Real SWO Gouge, www.sailorbob.com , Information Dissemination, www.informationdissemination.net , CDR Salamander, cdrsalamander.blogspot.com I like the Cut of His Jib!! navycaptain-therealnavy.blogspot.com, and The Stupid Shall be Punished, bubbleheads.blogspot.com.
31 As explained in the Navy’s Moral Compass, a DFC (detachment for cause) is an administrative procedure that releases funding to move personnel subsequent to the removal of naval officers from their current duty assignments for cause; it may not be required if suitable officers are available to relieve the officers who have been fired, and thus not documented. See U.S. Navy Department, Military Personnel Manual (Washington DC: 30 March 2007), chap 1611-020 ch 18, sec 1.
32 “Commanding officer, XO and senior enlisted firings,” Navy Times, http://www.navytimes.com/article/99999999/CAREERS/302050309/Commanding-officer-XO-senior-enlisted-firings (Accessed 16 January 2014).
33 “2010 Navy Commanding Officer Firings,” Navy Times, 15 December 2010, http://www.navytimes.com/article/20101215/NEWS/12150322/2010-Navy-commanding-officer-firings (Accessed 18 March 2014).
34 Naval IG 2010 report, “Personal Misconduct” included five subcategories; Orders Violations, Computer Pornography, Falsifying Documents, Adultery/Inappropriate Relationships/Harassment/Sexual Assault, and Alcohol/DUI. Executive Summary.
35 Light, “The Navy’s Moral Compass: Commanding Officers and Personal Misconduct.”
37 Janis Reid, “NAS Whidbey Squadron Commanding Officer Fired for Racism, Other Misdeeds,” Whidbey News-Times, January 13, 2014; “Whidbey Commander Relieved,” Whidbey News-Times, February 28, 2012; Sam Fellman, “Report: Fling in Italy Sank Flagship CO’s Career,” Navy Times, January 13, 2014; “NAS Whidbey Squadron Commander Relieved of Duty after Alleged Drunk Driving Incident,” Whidbey News-Times, April 12, 2011; “Growler Squadron CO Fired on Deployment,” Navy Times, July 19, 2011.
38 Naval IG 2010.
39 Naval IG 2010, 16.
40 Craig Whitlock, “Navy has Spike in Commanding-Officer Firings,” Washington Post, June 17, 2011; U.S. Navy Department, Commanding Officer Detach for Cause Study 2004 (Washington DC: Naval Inspector General), November 15, 2004, Executive Summary; and Light.
41 It is understood that changes of command may occur outside the commanding officer’s PRD for reasons such as changing operational commitments or to support an officer’s career requirements and promotion gates. Such events should be well documented by the ISIC.
42 Naval IG 2010, 19.
43 Ibid.
44 Navy Personnel Command, Human Resources Officer Homepage, http://www.public.navy.mil/BUPERS-NPC/OFFICER/DETAILING/RLSTAFFCORPS/HR/Pages/default.aspx (Accessed March 20, 2014).
45 Craig Whitlock, “Navy has Spike in Commanding-Officer Firings,” Washington Post, June 17, 2011.
46 Department of the Navy, MILPERSMAN 7220-100, Command Responsibility Pay.